Arne Heli at the Student Society (1965)

Translator's Note: This is a machine-assisted translation completed on March 11, 2025. While care has been taken to maintain accuracy, this translation has not yet undergone human review or validation. Please note that specialized terms, historical references, and nuanced content may benefit from expert review.

With his speech at the Student Society in Oslo in 1965, Arne Heli made history. He was the first Norwegian homosexual to come out openly.

Deviant sexuality from a psychoanalytic perspective was the theme of the roundtable discussion. In addition to Heli, participants included the Swedish psychiatrist Lars Ullerstam, author of the book The Erotic Minorities (1964), Finn Carling, and the NRK journalist Liv Haavik. Haavik would later create Norway's first radio program about homosexuality.

Arne Heli participated in the debate under the pseudonym Ivar Selholm. Beyond this, he appeared as himself, sharing his own experiences as a homosexual man.

The audio recording of Arne Heli's speech, which received great applause from the audience, has been digitized by the National Archive and can be listened to here. 

A letter from Heli to the organizers, regarding his use of a pseudonym, can be read here.

Arne Heli's speech: 

Honorable listeners. About 3% of the country's population, that is approximately 60,000 people, women and men, are homosexuals and thus belong to a group of sexual deviants.

Professor Gabriel Langfeldt had an article in Dagbladet yesterday where he claimed that Norwegian psychiatrists, psychologists, and sociologists are working to instill people with a more humane view of sexual deviance. But the 60,000 men and women I mentioned above feel little or no effect from this work. Homosexuality is still burdened with taboo in this country, as in much of the Western world.

What does it really mean to be homosexual in Norway in 1965?

I will try to provide a brief overview. I have spoken with many individuals with this orientation over the years. A common thread among all of them has been a strong fear of being exposed. I have asked myself: is there any reality behind this fear? And I have found that in most cases the answer must be an unconditional yes. It is a reality and a fact that the conditions at a typical workplace would become unbearable for the homosexual if their orientation became publicly known. They would be subjected to so many jabs, so much harassment, and deep contempt from colleagues that it alone would be enough to drive a man to leave his job, even if the boss did not immediately dismiss him.

For example, one can easily imagine the uproar that would arise at an elementary school if it became known that one of the teachers was homosexual. How would the parents of the children not immediately confuse the concepts of pedophilia and homosexuality, even if the teacher felt no attraction to individuals younger than himself? He could be an ethically high-standing individual, an excellent teacher, but it would not matter. His career as a teacher would definitely be over. Furthermore, the homosexual who was exposed would risk long-standing friendships ending or fading into demonstrative silence. Friends and acquaintances would ignore him, and perhaps he might even experience being ostracized by his own family.

There are, of course, homosexuals in all professions. Government officials in top positions, high-ranking military officers, office workers, farmers, and laborers. As long as their homosexual orientation is not known, they manage. But should it become known, almost the entire society would condemn him, and if he internalized such a situation, it would be far more than any human could bear. And this forms the ideal basis for the homosexual's fear of being exposed.

It is preferable not to talk or write about homosexuality, either publicly or privately. The problem is largely silenced. Finn Grodal’s book was refused coverage by the top management of NRK, despite a well-known and competent psychologist having submitted and received approval for a review of the work in the program department. NRK has to this day not dared to address the problem of homosexuality, while both Sweden’s and Denmark’s radios have had several programs on the subject. In Denmark, for example, there was a half-hour review and critique of Grodal’s book, and homosexuals were also interviewed on the microphone. Both countries' radio chiefs, of course, faced criticism. But they were strong enough to endure it. When will NRK dare to follow suit?

It is very difficult to get factual, enlightening articles about homosexuality published in the conservative or Christian-oriented press. Attempts have been made, but the material has been returned. One of Norway’s largest newspapers refused to publish a professional review of Vi som føler annerledes (We Who Feel Differently), with the justification that they did not want to shock their readers with such a topic.

From the homosexual community, there have been attempts to contact psychologists to try to get them interested in the subject. Some have agreed, but after some consideration, they have withdrawn, presumably out of fear that people would think they themselves had a "trace of the same cloth," as they were interested in the subject.

What about the country's psychiatrists? I will give some examples of what a homosexual might risk encountering if, in their distress, they seek one out. Three friends were advised to undergo castration as a quick and simple solution to the problem. This advice came from three different doctors. It should be unnecessary to elaborate on the immense, shocking, and depressing impact this had on the individuals who sought what they thought were professionals with the ability to understand and help them in their difficult life situations. A psychiatrist advised a homosexual at their first consultation to get married. Thus solving the entire problem easily and simply once and for all. In my view, this psychiatrist revealed an unforgivable irresponsibility. He actually advised a person to exploit another individual, a woman, who had no idea that the man proposing to her felt attraction to people of his own sex, and that she would only be a kind of tool for him to cross to the "right" side. Another aspect is, of course, that such advice demonstrates a shocking ignorance of the very nature of homosexuality. If one could be cured of homosexuality in such a simple way, homosexuality would not be a problem at all. A marriage between a purely homosexual man and a heterosexual woman is practically doomed to failure in advance and will be disastrous for both parties, not to mention the tragedy it would cause for any children.

Another was advised by a psychiatrist to simply stop being homosexual. The advice, likely expensive enough, could have been given by anyone with no knowledge of homosexuality. But when it is given by a person who calls themselves an expert in soul treatment, it is nothing short of unbelievable. Had I not heard this story from a reliable source, I would have refused to believe that a psychiatrist could reveal such a total lack of knowledge in their own field.

These examples are not intended as an attack on psychiatrists and psychologists in general. I have only used them as examples of the great ignorance one can encounter in these circles and the shocking experience it must be for the homosexual to be met with so little understanding and responsibility from this quarter.

Personally, I know or am aware of psychologists and psychiatrists who can show great empathy, who have studied the problem in-depth, and who can, therefore, be of great help to a person with a spiritual conflict.

The Christian homosexual is perhaps in the most difficult situation of anyone in this group. I have spoken with some devout homosexuals. The Church's condemning attitude toward homosexuality, of course, represents a burden for them that few outsiders can comprehend. Some clergy may accept the fact that even Christians can have a different orientation. But the repentant are always met with the demand for total abstinence. This, in practice, means that the Christian homosexual should also refrain from contact with like-minded individuals to avoid the temptation to sin. They are thus, in reality, left entirely isolated and must bear their cross without any hope of ever satisfying their need for contact with individuals who have the same problems as themselves.

There is also another side to the homosexual issue that I must address here: the difficulty of the inverted to make contact with like-minded individuals. Just discovering and making contact with kindred spirits presents challenges that, in many cases, must be insurmountable. I am primarily referring to those who live in the countryside or in small towns. Since the homosexual hides from the world, they also hide from their own. I have spoken with people in their 50s and 60s who have never previously been in contact with a kindred spirit and who have not confided in a single living soul about their orientation. No homosexual can avoid, over the years, coming into contact with individuals they know or feel belong to their kind. But from there, to breaking the ice and opening up, is usually a very long leap. For those who live in a big city, the problem is somewhat different. Provided they are not too fearful or resigned, for example, for religious reasons, they will sooner or later come into contact with like-minded individuals. The friends who eventually emerge will rarely manage to meet one’s need for general spiritual and intellectual contact in a satisfying way.

And finally, I must address another central point, namely the homosexual's emotional life. There is, unfortunately, a widespread misconception that the homosexual man solely harbors physical desire for another man. This is a completely erroneous assessment of homosexuals. The inverted, of course, has the same need for emotional connection with another individual as the heterosexual. And in this context, I would like to say that after reading Dr. Ullerstam's book and hearing him today, it seems to me that the doctor tries to separate the sexual from the purely human, treating them as two different factors without any interconnection.